Michael R. Clements wrote:
>
> Jesus Villarreal wrote:
> >
> > Michael R. Clements wrote:
> > >
> > > Torque schmorque, torque is for wimps. Rotary rice burners don't
> > > have much torque but they go 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds, and that's
> > > enough to beat most of those Vettes and Porsches. I'll take
> > > screaming wankel squirrels on crack over a big fiberglass boat
> > > powered by 100 year old thump-thump technology.
> >
> > I guess you don't mind being second best then.:)) And it's only 45 year
> > good ol' American tech not one hundred year old. The wankel has been
> > around at least that long also, if my memory is any good, 1945 in
> > Germany sounds about right, albeit not very reliable until the Japanese
> > made it work pretty good. Now put a turbo on one of those V8's and we'll
> > see which one gets there first. You don't see any Top Fuel dragsters
> > with wankels in them, or F1 cars, now, do we ????
> >
> > Jesus
>
> The first wankel engine ever to run was in 1957. The first piston
> engine ever to run (steam powered) was in the 1700s. The piston
> engine has had about 250 years more development time than the
> Wankel (guess that makes it 250 year old thump-thump technology).
>
> Even 250 years of development time has not enabled the piston
> engine to outperform the Wankel. The reason you don't see Wankels
> in racing more often is that they were so successful they were
> outlawed. Honda brags about the fact that the new S2000 generates
> 120 hp per liter; this is impressive, but Mazda gets 211 hp per
> liter with the new 13B. Both engines are normally aspirated.
> Wankel rules!
Mike, I knew you would have the correct info on the tip of your tongue.
thanks for the correct dates.
Jesus
|